About your Search

20130416
20130424
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7
't -- he shouldn't be mirandaized right away. i know you agree with them. >> i think the miranda issue is an easier issue. he doesn't have to be mar lindaized for a lot of reason. first of all, they have enough evidence to convict him without getting a confession from him. all miranda gets you is a confession you can use in court. you can use that information for everything else. remember, he confessed already to the guy they kidnapped. the guy he kidnapped says, these two guys told us, we did the bombing. they got great witness and they got a great confession. maybe even better than a law enforcement confession where you can claim it was forced out of you. they gave a upon takenious confession -- spontaneous confession. >> bob wants to get in here. so then why did they need to make that statement? i'm trying to figure out why they made that statement? >> i don't know exactly why they made it. maybe because they got so much criticism -- remember the christmas morning bomber that they mirandaized right away, lost the opportunity to get information from him? so i think maybe they were pl
negotiation with the fbi he gives himself up. >> right. >> they arrest him. they don't read him his miranda rights. explain. >> i'm not great on this. my understanding with the fbi and the federal authorities is that it's a terrorist act that they don't get certain rights that the rest of us would be afforded. they wanted to make sure that if we did speak with him that he wouldn't be given his miranda rights and something else kicked in. he was just -- >> you were told this in advance. if you found the guy, your officers are not going to read him his miranda rights. >> this never played out. there was no interviewing at the scene. he needed aid. >> he was in no position to talk. >> exactly. >> he was a very weak -- did he mumble anything? did he say anything? did he give any political statements? >> my understanding is he didn't have anything to say. i don't know for sure. >> what about during the 20-minute negotiation with the fbi when they were working out his surrender? did he make any statements that could be useful? >> no. i'm not aware of any statements. i think it was more he was fin
be read his miranda rights. moving past the politics of it because it seems to get a little poe lit kal, as a former member of fbi how does whether or not the suspect is read his miranda rights influence or impact your investigation? >> it really becomes irrelevant. good report-based interviewers and interrogators who are the ones most effective. the fbi doesn't do that because we're nice. we do that because it worked. in reported based interviewers miranda they can read that and continue. it is not a major obstacle. it is almost irrelevant. jenna: really? we're hearing a it is a major issue whether we get to the bottom of this investigation. so what should we consider as we continue to hear the debate ongoing over the next several days? >> it doesn't, it really doesn't make that much difference to the interviewers and especially the particular group of profile he is -- profilers they developed at quantico, at the fbi academy. this is not terribly relevant. they can sit down with the people. they can interview them. they look for behavioral cues. they look for a way to establish a relat
shouldn't be mirandaized right away. i know you agree with them. >> i think the miranda issue is an easier issue. he doesn't have to be mar lindaized for a lot of reason. first of all, they have enough evidence to convict him without getting a confession from him. all miranda gets you is a confession you can use in court. you can use that information for everything else. remember, he confessed already to the guy they kidnapped. the guy he kidnapped says, these two guys told us, we did the bombing. they got great witness and they got a great confession. maybe even better than a law enforcement confession where you can claim it was forced out of you. they gave a upon takenious confession -- spontaneous confession. >> bob wants to get in here. so then why did they need to make that statement? i'm trying to figure out why they made that statement? >> i don't know exactly why they made it. maybe because they got so much criticism -- remember the christmas morning bomber that they mirandaized right away, lost the opportunity to get information from him? so i think maybe they were playing defense
's before he gets the miranda rights. the fact that he can't speak right now, does that push back that window of time because they're not getting anything from him? >> that's a good question that i won't speculate on without a legal background. i'll leave that one up to the master pete williams. but i can imagine there's got to be some sort of gray area there that some lawyer could look at. on that point, though, i think it's interesting, where we've gone now from, alex, is we've gone from this, all right, what exactly happened, to these real sort of questions surrounding the national security of this country, and how exactly these two individuals were able to go forward with what they ultimately accomplished. so this morning, sort of around that point, talking to folks related to the house homeland security committee, they say they really want to sort of get this investigation rolling on why these two individuals seem to have slipped through the u.s. intelligence community, especially after that information reported yesterday that the russians were concerned about the older broth
. they didn't give a miranda warning so the aclu is shouting about that. and of course, well-known southern bell lindsey graham, why isn't he being treated as an enemy combatant? that one to me -- >> what about benghazi? >> shut up. >> stephanie: i'll always have benghazi. it is my terror. no. >> i would never go thirsty again. i'll have another mint julep thank you. >> stephanie: the legal expert i heard this weekend said this is a nonstarter to treat him as enemy combatants. did he a crime on u.s. soil. >> peter king said this. >> i believe -- should be portrayed as enemy combatants. senator mccain, senator graham, senator ayotte, there are so many questions unanswered so many potential links to terrorism here. the battlefield is now in the united states. i believe he is an enemy combatant. ultimately, he will be tried in a civilian court and the statements taken from him cannot be used against him in that trial. right now, the only links we have as much as chechnyan involvement in the islamic movement. are there other conspirators out there? where do they get the radicalization? >> he so
of the boat. >> no miranda warning, do you want to explain that to us. > that is a federal issue. >> what was the question? >> there was no miranda warning given they were claiming a public safety exception. >> there is a public safety exemption involving acts of terrorism. so the government has the opportunity, right now. i believe that the suspect has been taken to a hospital. thank you. yes? i'm sorry? >> are you going to seek the death penalty? >> this is still an active, ongoing investigation. we're going to be reviewing up of the evidence before that kind of a decision is made in terms of whether or not to seek the death penalty you review all of the evidence and it is a very thoughtful, long process that is engaged and it is the attorney general of the department of justice that makes that final decision. i'm sorry? karen? >> can you talk a little bit about when you were on the scene, was he moving around? how did you know it was a chance to take him into custody? >> we know he did not go straight to the boat. when we set up the perimeter with the best intentions with a lot of info
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7